Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/22/2019 in all areas

  1. Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K6xCXtCUd68PPzvNjBxD5ffgE_69VEoc/view?usp=sharing Revision 00, first issued December 22nd, 2019 Revision 01, Updated Feb 04th, 2020 Revision 02, Updated Feb 28th, 2020 Revision 03, Updated Apr 18th, 2020. Revision 04, Updated Jun 26th, 2020. Revision 05, Updated Nov 18th, 2020. Thank you for reviewing and help updating and correcting!
    19 points
  2. someone at gameslabs hire this guy.
    3 points
  3. Did they? Too bad they forgot Russia. Would be first on my list to delete. But not Poland.
    3 points
  4. Abstraction of human factors is necessary, especially command and control. Abstraction (or extreme fudging based on consensus of “feel” or whoever shouts loudest) of factors like armor penetration, armor protection, accuracy and spotting is not. It is actually a huge waste of time as it just leads to constant back and forth based on subjective feel (see post below). Better to make objective what can be objectively established, then shape abstraction and “feel” factor around elements that must be abstracted.
    3 points
  5. I think people are going a bit mental with realism, if the game is not fun there is no reason to play it at all, i would rather have a more fun than realism but still having realistic mechanics and abilities that don't detract from the fun. I think getting the game to a more stable situation and fixing whatever content needs fixing is more important then moving onto new stuff once that has been done. It's a sandbox game and people seem to forget this for some reason, i get peeps don't want easy mode (neither do i) but balance is kinda a non-issue half the time in a singleplayer game
    3 points
  6. I do not mind the hotfix. I think it might have gone a little too far, but that's ok. I personally have not had trouble with overwhelming secondaries, but maybe I just haven't played the right missions again. There are some other things to consider before balancing accuracy across the board. Though I think the separation into focus groups or processes is valid and a great approach, we have some gestalt stuff too. Armor is wacky. It is not hard to build an invincible armored brick, so that guns that can't penetrate are worthless. Some battleships indeed had armor all over, but this t
    3 points
  7. Since some people are defending him, I will as well. While I respect the administrator's discretion to decide what kind of language is acceptable on his board, I plead that he consider the following: To the extent RamJB diverted from fully civil discourse, you have to admit he was quite heavily provoked. One can only stay so cool when they provide a page of text that they believe fully answers their opponent's question, only to be met with a single line that's best summarized as "No count" without even an explanation. BTW, speaking as a third-party (albeit one that generally agrees w
    3 points
  8. So for campaign more landlocked countries or ones with weaker navies will have coastal batteries play a larger role for them. Would it be possible for the player to make simple battery layouts by using the already available turret models of his nations and determining the armoring and concrete thickness of them? It would be exciting on a gameplay level to use these batteries in conjunction with light ships against capital ships in places like the baltic and adriatic.
    2 points
  9. well it would be a good tutorial aspect for newbies. link in the tutorial or help section ?? perhaps
    2 points
  10. Alan Lewrie's Salty Armour Once in Dewey Lambdin's Alan Lewrie novels (I think it was "the gun ketch") the sides of a merchant vessel were armoured (from the inside) with bags filled with salt. Ingredients: - 500 Salt - 200 Hemp (for the bags) Effects: - Side Armour thickness +2 - Heel +3% (due to weight placed on higher decks) - Maximum crew -20% (due to less space on decks) - reload time -3% (due to less space for doing the job) - Splinter resistance +15% Clan: BASTD
    2 points
  11. I'll actually disagree. First, realism is objective and universal. I don't think there are players that really hate realism - no one has ever been ashamed or felt bad about the fact the game they played has a high alignment with reality. Further, just the fact or even perception that something hard is realistic is a motivator for people to try to master it anyway. Second, fun is subjective and nonuniversal. I believe you said you want secondaries buffed because you like "pew-pews". Well, not everyone does. But we'll have one more ground to say Why Not then you do. Besides, if you play a r
    2 points
  12. I'd like to see personal stats. Number of fights, br-difference, saildamage done/sustained, wins, losses, draws/escapes, crew killed, masts taken, pve stats are in a different column or something (different to count maybe in mixed fights), etc. Maybe we could even have a log from every battle we ever played? I don't need to see a ranking to other players, because of reason posted above already.
    2 points
  13. From a design point of view, accuracy/damage/armour really aren't intertwined other than in the sense of requirements and sequencing. I'm not saying this to nit-pick, lol, more as a general discussion about the challenges the devs face and how it affects us. If I were to approach the tactical battlefield as a total process, the common method would be to cut it into the sub-processes and then farm those out to individual teams (assuming I had the resources). If we take the 3 processes mentioned, although I'll call them gunnery, hit resolution and damage, each can be developed, indepen
    2 points
  14. дайте возможность называть корабли, или давать им рукописную метку для быстрой идентификации в доке, если у меня там стоит два или более кораблей одного типа, чтобы можно было быстро найти нужный. Да и так для атмосферности ввести названия было бы неплохо.
    2 points
  15. 1 point
  16. As at 23rd November 2019 First and foremost - let me thank the Game Labs development team for including port ownership on the Peace Server. It has added a completely new dynamic and significantly more content. Alot of players are taking an interest, and this group is growing rapidly. THE GAME MECHANICS OF OWNING A PORT 1. The owner of a port receives 80% of the tax revenue generated from all taxable trades within the port (minus the costs below). Received in Reals on a daily basis at maintenance, and paid directly into the owning clan's warehouse. 2. The owner of a port can
    1 point
  17. First time posting. Love the game, especially the quick battles. It reminds me of making missions in Chuck Yeager's Air Combat and the Star Trek Starfleet Command series. Even if the campaign fails the quick missions are great. Some general observations and wish list. A tonnage limiter in the Quick Battle menu. Even a fleet tonnage limit. Or some type of treaty limits of the time frame. More flexibility in tower location, funnel location and barbette locations, actually any reduction in building restrictions is awesome. An internal layout designer, especially enabling
    1 point
  18. They had just couple of ports and no threat to anyone, as a Captain staying far away from politics and RvR i remain curious however,.. Someone care to enlighten an old seadog?.
    1 point
  19. Think Sweden took terre de bas Just because of the Tools. Maybe swedes build their sheds there now ... US attacked Cano Macareo. Dutch asked polish to Set Timer on the remaining port, polish refuses or no officer of the Port owner Clan was online for days ... so dutch took the Port, but offered to give it Back If polish set a Timer on it ...
    1 point
  20. One thing I would take is if torpedo hold order would be applied to all the formation instead of having to do it one by one.
    1 point
  21. I would be surprised if there didn't end up being such a tech tree. For example, how else would there be 15 levels of "Armor Quality" if there are only 7 armor types above Iron? It looks as if they have something like a Rule the Waves-type system with more emphasis on components rather than passive modifiers, but still not lacking the latter entirely.
    1 point
  22. The fun thing is: we can still have both games in one, by simply being able to influence the difficulty level/realism as in examples like: Silent Hunter III, the only game of that franchise i played for a significant time AND i think reasonably similar to use as an example. You want historic accuracy, make a switch, you want realistic sinking times, make a switch, you want higher tech, make a switch like „tech advantage“. Bam, one game, but two games. Unfortunately it was absolutely impossible in this forum to bring up strategic „game-selling-ideas“, because a certain group of people did
    1 point
  23. This is not simply how it worked in reality and was highly situational and dependent on ship-specific technologies, most of which would only be available at the very end of the era, and even then arguable in fully achieving what you describe.
    1 point
  24. @akd @Tousansons If I may interject: The process of making a game is itself backward from reality. You start with the game concept and only then you start building up the mechanics and universe around it. Having said that. I have no doubt that the dev what to achieve the maximum level of realism... within their game concept and mean.
    1 point
  25. Yo this is amazing! the change to armor and penetration as well as ship damage is much more noticable and makes everyting much more fun! i love this hotfix! best changes yet imo. the only last big gripe i have left with the armor model now is that ship still remain unreasonably tanky when they are showing their bow or stern, because the game doesn't model transverse bulkheads. other than that, all the rest regarding armor feels much closer to where it sould be. the accuracy increase for small guns/secondaries is great too! it may even be a bit too much now, but not sure yet, i need t
    1 point
  26. I ll try to develop a bit on realism, even if I agree with most of arkhangelsk said. You can't emulate reality in a video game. Some things will always be abstracted or removed because they are not interesting, too difficult to implement in the engine. For this reason, I don't think you can call it objective or universal in this particular environnement. You can use realism as a selling point and make sure your video game use accurate historical values, but in my opinion there will always be some concession needed. A video game is first and foremost a game, the "fun" factor is an importan
    1 point
  27. Hi devs, What happens in case a nation get totally wiped out of the game, in this case Poland? The players of that realm will have to restart everything from a free town (Shourd Cay) ? In my opinion every nation should have some non-conquerable home ports like GB or Spain. Are there any news about the seasons system?
    1 point
  28. Very good idea, but the problem is that ships are moving objects while battles are not.
    1 point
  29. we have the log book for battles in the vicinity from every vessel in battle. new logbook : (drop) " Personal Traders Logbook" Range: same as normal logbook where we can see all the trading traffic: but only from trading vessels with trade goods on board (including warships* with trading* onboard) provided by your admiralty. pro: provided information from admiralty's from all over the map on ship travic with trade goods on board >> just only trade goods (like: passengers , trees ,peanut, butter, hemp, sugar, violins indigo ,salpeter, tar ..exc)
    1 point
  30. seems to happen to me using any of the guns and any hull. they are not restricted buy super structures in the slightest. as ive said, all guns fire most of the time, then the odd occasion only 2 will fire. im not changing course or switching targets. the problem is a bug nothing more.
    1 point
  31. 1 point
  32. This seems to have worked perfectly thank you for fixing the issue I had, I will let you know if anything changes but it appears to be running beautifully.
    1 point
  33. Online Air Combat game called Aces High had a excellent stats page for every player followed by rankings, so kills per hour were more important than actual kills per death, as anyone can milk/game a good K/D ratio. From those stats overall ranks were determined. Then of course you would have Squadron (clan) ranks as well for different aspects of the game. Below is one players data for one tour=one month.
    1 point
  34. @Erebus I just redid it to make sure my old strategy still hold. It does, but with a twist. What you have now is a single BB. That is just 4 good guns you have there. I would suggest going for cheaper ship, lesser everything exept guns and tower. You can easily double up firepower and almost guarantee that the opening of the battle will favor you. There is a extra reason to do this, since last patch armor combat value is not quite what it was, guns are more accurate and have much more penetrative power. Do not expect to be able to make effective armor for now.
    1 point
  35. Hard to implement properly Does any battle count? 1v1 just as 5v1 etc.? Do bigger ships "count more" as smaller vessels? Or are there seperate rankings? OW Encounterings are RNG, how can you "proove" your abilities? How do you prevent Alt farming? Also this would lead to people not taking fights anymore "Because they have to stay on top of the ranking" I had a similar idea somewhen but I figured it only kind of worked for 1v1's in an arena match
    1 point
  36. I believe that you did not ask for an admin intervention. For the rest, since it would be an off-topic discussion and further I don't want to start any flame wars. I shall assemble a PM and send to you ASAP.. Update: PM has been sent
    1 point
  37. I want to make it clear that I did not ask for a admin intervention nor complained about RamJB. I did not want to address this openly here but I feel I now have to. Do I think RamJB is knowledgeable when it come to naval warfare? Yes I do. Having said that, it was indeed pretty unpleasant to voice opinion here, backed by source or not. Some may say that he was provoked, I would reply to that I do not like to have one of sentence nip picked, quoted out of context and twisted into something I did not say. Only to be presented with wall of text that do not address the argument I made in the fi
    1 point
  38. @Nick Thomadis I feel you were a bit excessively harsh on @RAMJB as while he does repeat himself a bit he's stayed rather civil about the whole discussion and provides plenty of sources and other information to back up his point and has largely engaged in civil and productive discussions.
    1 point
  39. Well, my testing seem to suggest otherwise. I would be curious to see how much exactly trough. Btw, it was in 1940s era that I easily sunk CA with DDs. I am fairly certain you can do it in earlier era too. I almost soloed a BC yesterday, but could not reproduce it, call it a lucky event. Here is the one of the ship I used to do it (the most successful was smaller that that. +-24TS): You have to make it as quick as possible stay at range where enemy get very low hit chance. Gonna try in earier era, should be fun. Edit: its actually easier in1914. You can keep the enemy under 0.6% hit
    1 point
  40. This is how it works now. When we add more detailed Citadel mechanics, it is going to become even more realistic.
    1 point
  41. Little Cayman port Battle Won by Russia :
    1 point
  42. This is exactly correct. One of the prime reasons for going to all-big-gun ships was a fear of torpedoes. Although guns could be terribly destructive, they had limited ability to actually sink a ship, as it was hard to destroy a vessel's buoyancy. A torpedo, on the other hand, would cause tremendous underwater damage and conceivably could sink even a battleship with just one hit (see HMS Audacious, lost to a single mine). Torpedoes were considered a powerful threat, but they were very inaccurate in the early years. This changed in 1896, when gyros were introduced. Suddenl
    1 point
  43. Ah, very well explained, and very good mechanics so that the defenders cannot prepare any defense tactics except to remain in the circles and pray that 1/3 of our fleet eliminates the entire enemy fleet. Good job, I applaud.
    1 point
  44. naval action Game-Labs sold 1 mln copies of various games since start (full list at www.game-labs.net). The top ten list for NA is drastically different compared to other products - you know why? Because nations. Norway and denmark are in top 10 ONLY for NA. Sweden Poland are in top 15 ONLY for Naval Action. Other games have traditional distrubution - NA top sellers are countries we added to the game. GL Other game. No russian federation at all in the top 10. No denmark, No spain. no norway. Only an idiot businessman will reduce the number of nations as those nations br
    1 point
  45. I don't think most players would put up with any kind of wipe ..we are fed up with wipes
    1 point
  46. STS definition of group play: STS main character STS Alt1 STS Alt2 STS Alt3 STS Alt4 STS Alt5 STS Alt6 Maybe we can play together on Sandboxie. BTW, STS you are wrong. Solo play is very doable.
    1 point
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...